As much as I love Slackware (7+ year user), I also am debating leaving. The current climate around here has been pushing me over the edge, and I have previously already changed 2 of my computers over to (as much as I don't like the idea of using the daemon that doesn't get mentioned) Linux Mint. That is not the only reason, maintaining my own build scripts is quite the responsibility because I like things built a bit different than what is on SBo, mainly fulfilled dependencies.

I fully appreciate Mr Volkerding for Slackware and maintaining for so long as it is still IMO the best distro around, and hope that both are around for a long time to come but I think that our adventure is about to come to an end.

3 members found this post helpful.

I do not intend to start an argument, but will Linux Mint give you this flexibility with its packages? One of the reasons I use Slackware is exactly this: how easy it is to just recompile something or tweak.

@ Skaendo

Lack of package dependencies is what drove me from Slack many years ago

For a distro without systemd, take a look at Devuan.

Yeah, I'm confused by that too. It seems counter-intuitive, but perhaps he's saying that the Mint packages are compiled in a manner that suits him?

1 members found this post helpful.

Void is a good non-systemd distro; I'm running it in a VM at the moment. Void is worth a look; it's not a derivative it's something new.
I'm running Slackware and Debian (and assorted VMs).

PCLinuxOS is also a non-systemd distro.
https://distrowatch.com/table.php?di...tion=pclinuxos

2 members found this post helpful.

And what stops you to use both Slackware and Linux Mint?

Like a friend of mine said on another forum: using several Linux distributions is like living in several countries, makes you more resilient to State propaganda from any of those countries and you known better the World.

I for one, I use since over 10 years the Slackware. But, even before that I started using Ubuntu and openSUSE, and I used all three of them in parallel.

The fact that I understand well enough how they built openSUSE, probably is proved by the fact that I managed to understand how they did the Wayland/Plasma5 setup, then later I ported those principles to Slackware.

As strange as it looks, probably anyone interested on Wayland/Plasma5 of Slackware, got improvements and a better desktop because someone uses also openSUSE since long time. Well, this is just an example.

Long story short, I think will be great to be here more people who uses multiple distros, because we can have a informed comparation of the solutions adopted by one or other distributions. Which may be useful for improving later the Slackware and its community.

The lack of informed opinions may lead to radicalization, like in: this sucks, that sucks and everything else sucks because Our Dear Leader said that 12 years, 4 months and 17 days ago and His Words Are Final. As IF an intelligent man will never change his opinions when he sees proper arguments for. Even after 12 years.

And that radicalization may lead on a much smaller community - the History teach us that this is what happens no matter is about software, politics or religion.

So, this is my humble suggestion: go and enjoy your Linux Mint boxes but do not forget also about Slackware. Your new experiences may be useful someday also for us.

3 members found this post helpful.

Exactly. I do not understand why there is so much fixation with running one distro.

I run Slackware and Debian specifically to improve coverage. I found a half-dozen small things that worked on one but not the other.
Ed

4 members found this post helpful.

In my case, it's age-related. Ten years ago, I had several distros with different applications on each. In the morning, I would start Debian or Crux or LFS according to what exactly I wanted to do that day. But now I haven't got the energy for all that maintenance.

3 members found this post helpful.

Same here. Slackware and Debian are my distros. They fill my needs.

1 members found this post helpful.

Because it's less to worry about. You don't need to remember different package manager commands. You don't need to deal with different startup scripts. You don't need to deal with differently built packages that may not react the same on each distro.

There's nothing wrong with running multiple distros if they each provide something you want/need, but there's a lot of simplicity in running one distro.

4 members found this post helpful.

Well, the truth is that if @Skaendo learns the init scripts from Linux Mint, he will become very very familiar also with the init scripts from Fedora, or Ubuntu, or openSUSE. Or, even with those from RHEL.

And you know WHY !?!

Also, the packages managers aren't so many. Just few.

Regarding the packages offer? They are tons, ready to be downloaded and be installed, no matter what other major Linux distro you adopt.

I've never tried to memorize them, but to learn how to search for what I want.

BTW, just for fun, around 4 years ago I did a "full install" of Ubuntu, in the Slackware's Holly Full Install style. It had around 300GB .

That's because you just installed for one arch. At time of writing Debian proposes packages for 14 archs. including one for Hurd and two for KFreeBSD

1 members found this post helpful.

Did this really require an argument? Nothing you stated here discounts my points.

It is easier to learn a single init system than multiple init systems.

It is easier to learn commands from a single package manager than commands for multiple package managers.

It is easier to deal with one package being built one way than multiple packages being built multiple ways (different dependencies which could affect features, not to mention differing versions may have different options).

It is easier to deal with one distro than multiple distros. That doesn't mean there aren't benefits from using multiple distros, but that wasn't the point of my post.

Well, this is one of the dumbest things you've spouted (and had absolutely nothing to do with my post). Why do you insist to compare two things that have no reason to be compared?

The "full install" from Ubuntu that you did is vastly different from Slackware's. Slackware doesn't have an official online repo for additional software, so it only includes what's on the official installation media (and patches that are offered on mirrors for those packages on the official installation media).

To remind you for who knows how many times, Slackware doesn't have dependency resolution. Because of this, Pat recommends doing a full install, which is "almost" everything on the installation media (doesn't count extra/ and testing/) to make sure you don't end up with a broken system. Most people do a similar "full install" with Ubuntu, selecting the recommended default of the installation media. The difference, is if they decide to not do a full install, the system will tell them what needs to be uninstalled due to removing a specific package. Slackware does no such thing and if you remove something, it could break your whole install without a single warning.

Why is it so hard for you to understand the reasons a full install is recommended? It is not required, but recommended to make sure you don't end up with a broken system.

1 members found this post helpful.

Oh, is dumbest to note that Ubuntu has tons of packages, ready to be installed at a simple command, compared with Slackware, even with its full install?

Yeah, the Debian or Ubuntu, or any other major distro offers you much more software ready to be installed, compared with Slackware. And this happens without asking you to spend the rest of your life solving manually the build dependencies.

The Slackware itself is a very nice collection of software for an usual desktop. With some web servers behind. I may say it basically targets the web-developers. But even there are lacks. Huge lacks like NodeJS and NGINX or PostgreSQL, to say few...

BUT, it's a nice desktop which I install with "upgradepkg --install-new --terse */*.t?z" instead of running the installer.

Don't worry, I am not against your Holly Full Install.

The problem is what's beyond that - because there are tons of software beyond that.